K.P. Varghese v. ITO

131 ITR 597Supreme Court of India1981#44 most cited

What is K.P. Varghese v. ITO authority for?

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

989

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2026.

Also referred to as

K.P. Varghese v. ITO · 131 ITR 597 · difference in valuation · unexplained investment · Valuation Officer report · deletion of addition · Assessing Officer enquiry · Section 69 · Section 69A · Section 115BBE · no addition on suspicion · understatement of consideration

Also reported as

7 Taxmann 13

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 292CSection 69Section 153CSection 115BBESection 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 5(8)section 52closely held companyaccumulated profitsdumb documentssection 132(4a)section 131(1a)section 260section 69bsection 292csection 292bsection 292

Judgments citing K.P. Varghese v. ITO

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. Jagannathan Sekar, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1281/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin,CIT
Section 132(4)

…ended that the payment of cash by him towards purchase of the property has not been established with any corroborative evidence other than the statement of Shri Gopu Rajagopal which has already been retracted by him. In the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that “the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always on the revenue and that throwing the burden of showing that there is no under-statement of consideration on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not rece…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. K. Rethinam, Dindigul

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1274/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin,CIT
Section 132(4)

…ended that the payment of cash by him towards purchase of the property has not been established with any corroborative evidence other than the statement of Shri Gopu Rajagopal which has already been retracted by him. In the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that “the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled is always on the revenue and that throwing the burden of showing that there is no under-statement of consideration on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not rece…

Mitcon Forum for Social Development, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 613/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.613/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2024-25 Mitcon Forum For Social V The Commissioner Of Development, S Income Tax(Exemption), Kebera Chambers, 1St Floor, Pune. Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005. Maharashtra Pan: Aalcm9558M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad A Vaze – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkude – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax-Exemption, Pune Passed Under Section 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 19.02.2025. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax,(Exemptions) Pune, Is Not

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

…endment procedure. 7. In this background we have to interpret the relevant provisions. To interpret the provisions, we shall refer to the Budget Speech of the Hon’ble Finance Minister. 7.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghese Vs. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) has observed as under regarding use of Speech of a Minister as a tool in interpretation: Quote , “ Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the s…

Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence Systems Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3260/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3259 & 3260/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2021-22& 2022-23 Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence The Income Tax Officer, Systems Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Ward6(3) New No.33/2, Old No.5/2, Chennai. Rajeshwari Apartment, 5Th Cross Street, Alagiri Nagar, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. [Pan:Aaxcs 9635F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

…ve such an incongruous result. Therefore, to make section 32AB(5) of the Act constitutionally valid, the only alternative or workable solution is that the audit report should be made available before the assessment is made : (vide K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) and followed in CIT v. A. N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481 (Mad)); (ii) a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation [2002] 254 ITR 6, interpreting section 32AB(5) itself, which is the subject matter in the present appeal, held that the submission of the audit report is directory, but not mandator…

Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence Systems Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3259/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3259 & 3260/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2021-22& 2022-23 Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence The Income Tax Officer, Systems Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Ward6(3) New No.33/2, Old No.5/2, Chennai. Rajeshwari Apartment, 5Th Cross Street, Alagiri Nagar, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. [Pan:Aaxcs 9635F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

…ve such an incongruous result. Therefore, to make section 32AB(5) of the Act constitutionally valid, the only alternative or workable solution is that the audit report should be made available before the assessment is made : (vide K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) and followed in CIT v. A. N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481 (Mad)); (ii) a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Punjab Financial Corporation [2002] 254 ITR 6, interpreting section 32AB(5) itself, which is the subject matter in the present appeal, held that the submission of the audit report is directory, but not mandator…

Ramesh Ramani, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(5), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Prabhakar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…mptions or presumptions or surmises or conjectures. And it is the burden of the Department to prove the correctness of such additions. In the following cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had pronounced ratios to the same effect: (i) K.P. Varghese v, ITO [1981| 131 ITR 5971 (SC); (ii) CIT v. A. Roman & Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC); (iii) CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1973]91 ITR 8 (SC): (iv) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959| 37 ITR 271 (SC).99. Apart from these Supreme Court cases, we also wish to cite the following decisions from Hon'ble Appellate Tribunals. :- 4 -: Sindhu Trade Links Ltd. Vs Add. CIT (TAT D…

Tajshree Autowheels Private Limited, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle-4, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 400/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur04 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Madhav VichoreFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…sideration for transfer was 10 Tajshree Autowheels Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.400/Nag./2024 correctly disclosed by the assessee. The said principle was followed in various court rulings which are reproduced herein below for your honors referral: i) ITO v.K.P. Varghese (131 ITR 597); "The object and purpose of sub-section (2), as explicated from the speech of the Finance Minister, was not to strike at honest and bona fide transactions where the consideration for the transfer was correctly disclosed by the assessee but to bring within the net of taxation those transactions where the consideration in respect of the transfer w…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jagannathan Sekat, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2220/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’"यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.2220/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 v. The DCIT, Shri Jagannathan Sekat, Central Circle-2(4), No.5 Fifth Street, Chennai. Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. [PAN: BCDPS 4688 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department by : Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT Assessee by : Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CA : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of Hearing 03.12.2024 : घोषण…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Gopu Rajagopal, Chennai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections

ITA 1811/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 69A

…rden as per legal principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. as per legal principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. as per legal principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) holding that onus of establishing that the arghese vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) holding that onus of establishing that the arghese vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) holding that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this cond…

DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Vavipalayam Selvaraju Thennerasu, Namakkal

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1153/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1152/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Smt. Amutha Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O., Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abypa-7011-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1153/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Shri Vavipalayam Selvaraju Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O, Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpt-8530-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. AR
Section 132Section 143

…arties in a case where there was no other evidence on record to prove that on-money was paid except the loose sheet found in the premise of a third-party and admission made by the third-party. 4.7 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) held that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability were fulfilled would always be on the revenue and throwing the burden of showing that there was no under-statement of consideration on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not receive any consideration…

DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Amutha Thennarasu, Namakkal

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1152/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1152/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Smt. Amutha Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O., Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abypa-7011-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1153/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Shri Vavipalayam Selvaraju Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O, Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpt-8530-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. AR
Section 132Section 143

…arties in a case where there was no other evidence on record to prove that on-money was paid except the loose sheet found in the premise of a third-party and admission made by the third-party. 4.7 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P Varghese Vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) held that the onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability were fulfilled would always be on the revenue and throwing the burden of showing that there was no under-statement of consideration on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative, namely, that he did not receive any consideration…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…judication on ground of appeal number 7 and 8. The above is strengthened by the below expected submissions of the appellant:- "CIT v, Dinesh Jain HUF [2012] 25 taxmann.com 550 (Delhi) …………. ………… Applying the logic and reasoning in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 (SC). for the purposes of section 698 it is the burden of the Assessing Officer to first prove that there was understatement of the consideration (investment) in the books of account. Once that undervaluation is established as a matter of fact. the Assessing Officer, in the absence of any satisfactory explanation from the assessee as…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Hyderabad vs. Sv Multi Logitech Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 82/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.81/Hyd/2021 & 82/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. S.V.Multi Logitech Income Tax Private Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aascs7131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. S.V.Multi Logitech Private Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…se of the property is concluded by a way of a Registered Sale Deed stating that the sale consideration is Rs. 19,40,75,000/- which were paid by Demand Draft. In a similar circumstance the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case K.P. Varghese vs. ITO [1981] reported in 131 ITR 597 had categorically held that no addition can be made on the plea of understatement of sale consideration unless it is established that physically money has been received over and above the declared consideration. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes [2003] reported in 262 ITR 354 vide judgment dated 22/01/2…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Sv Multi Logitech Private Limited, Secunderbad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 81/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.81/Hyd/2021 & 82/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. S.V.Multi Logitech Income Tax Private Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aascs7131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. S.V.Multi Logitech Private Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…se of the property is concluded by a way of a Registered Sale Deed stating that the sale consideration is Rs. 19,40,75,000/- which were paid by Demand Draft. In a similar circumstance the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case K.P. Varghese vs. ITO [1981] reported in 131 ITR 597 had categorically held that no addition can be made on the plea of understatement of sale consideration unless it is established that physically money has been received over and above the declared consideration. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes [2003] reported in 262 ITR 354 vide judgment dated 22/01/2…

DCIT CC 1(1), Nagpur vs. Brindesh Goverdhandas Agrawal, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 258/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…the time of search and seizure operations. Smt. P. Nalini Devi also in her statement further clearly stated that the property was sold at Rs.23.50 lakhs and not at the rate of Rs. 1.68 crores. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Verghese reported in 131 ITR 597 has held that onus is on the department to prove that the assessee has understated the value of the property and has paid more than what is mentioned in the registered sale deed. The Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Moosa S. Madha and Azam S. Madha vs. CIT(89 ITR 65) has held that photo copies have little evidentiary value. Therefore, photocopies o…

Narayanashrama Tapovanam, Thrissur vs. CIT Exmption, Kochi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 453/COCH/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Narayanasharma Tapovanam .......... Appellant Venginissery, Paralam P.O. Ammadam, Thrissur 680563 [Pan: Aaatn4280D] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Old Railway Station Road Ernakulam, Kochi 682018 Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 5Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is later, 9. We are also fortified in adopting the above construction by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [198117 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 (SC). 10. Adverting to the facts of the present case, undisputedly, the appellant trust commenced its actual activities on 16.03.2011 and in view of the above construction of clause (iii) of proviso to section 80G(5) the appellant trust is entitled to file the application for regular approval prior to six months of expiry of the provisional appro…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 936/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…t be as aids to the construction of a statute, undoubtedly throw light on the intent and design of the legislature and indicate the scope and purpose of the legislation itself." It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 as under- "It is well recognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible that absurdity and mischief may be avoided." If a assessee is allowed to claim an allowance, deduction etc. u/s 153A not claimed earlier than it would mean that even in cases where the appeal arising out of the complete…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 935/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…t be as aids to the construction of a statute, undoubtedly throw light on the intent and design of the legislature and indicate the scope and purpose of the legislation itself." It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 as under- "It is well recognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible that absurdity and mischief may be avoided." If a assessee is allowed to claim an allowance, deduction etc. u/s 153A not claimed earlier than it would mean that even in cases where the appeal arising out of the complete…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 934/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…t be as aids to the construction of a statute, undoubtedly throw light on the intent and design of the legislature and indicate the scope and purpose of the legislation itself." It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 as under- "It is well recognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible that absurdity and mischief may be avoided." If a assessee is allowed to claim an allowance, deduction etc. u/s 153A not claimed earlier than it would mean that even in cases where the appeal arising out of the complete…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result the ground no

ITA 933/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…t be as aids to the construction of a statute, undoubtedly throw light on the intent and design of the legislature and indicate the scope and purpose of the legislation itself." It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 as under- "It is well recognized rule of construction that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible that absurdity and mischief may be avoided." If a assessee is allowed to claim an allowance, deduction etc. u/s 153A not claimed earlier than it would mean that even in cases where the appeal arising out of the complete…